ICEBlock App Developer Sues Trump Officials, Claims Apple Was Pressured to Remove App

[It’s always something]

Could you please provide evidence from your LLM?

Here are news stories:

ICEBlock app blamed for violence aimed at immigration officers

The White House, FBI and ICE officials are frustrated with the spread of an app to flag immigration activities nationwide.

www.usatoday.com

MSN

Use of the ICEBlock App is exploding; criminal prosecution is likely

The use and popularity of ICEBlock, an app used to alert those at risk of being deported by ICE agents operating nearby, is soaring, reportedly hitting #8 on the charts

www.circlevilleherald.com

ICEBlock App Flags ICE Activity At Dallas Home Depot, Sparks Safety Concerns

ICEBlock shows that there was an immigration enforcement action at a Home Depot in Dallas on July 14th around 2:30 PM.

dallasexpress.com

TL;DR: your new links provide no evidence of ICEBlock’s use for violence. The Copilot LLM denies that any such evidence exists. Gemini claims that it has happened but its links don’t back that up (and one actually refutes it).

Your first link’s “evidence” consists of an assertion by Karoline Leavitt that the Dallas ICE shooter (who actually only shot detainees) had used ICEBlock. An assertion is not evidence, and the article goes on to quote the app’s author disputing her assertion. This article, from Slate, points out that despite the claims of Bondi and others (including even a congressional committee) to the contrary, “there was no evidence that the shooter used ICEBlock at any point”. Evidence that might suggest he did does not exist – the app wasn’t even on his phone.

Your second link, about “the exploding use” of ICEBlock, does not provide any evidence that the app was ever used for the purpose of targeting law enforcement. None.

And, unsurprisingly now, your third link, about ICE activity at a Dallas Home Depot, contains no indication whatsoever that ICEBlock was used for purposes of committing violence against law enforcement.

As to your question about the LLM I’m using: I’ve used two different LLMs about this. Copilot just comes right out and says:

“The controversy around ICEBlock centers on perceived risks versus actual evidence. While officials argued it could facilitate harm, no credible reports confirm the app was used to commit violence. The debate remains about free speech, public safety, and government pressure on tech companies, rather than documented violent incidents.”

(Emphasis added)

Gemini is somewhat more cautious, but it is the source of the Slate link I provided above. Gemini sums things up this way:

“In summary, while government officials and lawmakers have explicitly claimed that the app was used in a specific act of targeted violence and was a safety risk, the app's developer is suing over the app's removal and claims that no actual evidence has been provided to substantiate those links to violent outcomes.”

None of Gemini’s links provide support for the government’s claim that the app has been used for violence; one of them (the Slate article I linked above) flatly denies that any such evidence exists.

 

[goonie4life9]

TL;DR: your new links provide no evidence of ICEBlock’s use for violence. The Copilot LLM denies that any such evidence exists. Gemini claims that it has happened but its links don’t back that up (and one actually refutes it).

Your first link’s “evidence” consists of an assertion by Karoline Leavitt that the Dallas ICE shooter (who actually only shot detainees) had used ICEBlock. An assertion is not evidence, and the article goes on to quote the app’s author disputing her assertion. This article, from Slate, points out that despite the claims of Bondi and others (including even a congressional committee) to the contrary, “there was no evidence that the shooter used ICEBlock at any point”. Evidence that might suggest he did does not exist – the app wasn’t even on his phone.

Your second link, about “the exploding use” of ICEBlock, does not provide any evidence that the app was ever used for the purpose of targeting law enforcement. None.

And, unsurprisingly now, your third link, about ICE activity at a Dallas Home Depot, contains no indication whatsoever that ICEBlock was used for purposes of committing violence against law enforcement.

As to your question about the LLM I’m using: I’ve used two different LLMs about this. Copilot just comes right out and says:

“The controversy around ICEBlock centers on perceived risks versus actual evidence. While officials argued it could facilitate harm, no credible reports confirm the app was used to commit violence. The debate remains about free speech, public safety, and government pressure on tech companies, rather than documented violent incidents.”

(Emphasis added)

Gemini is somewhat more cautious, but it is the source of the Slate link I provided above. Gemini sums things up this way:

“In summary, while government officials and lawmakers have explicitly claimed that the app was used in a specific act of targeted violence and was a safety risk, the app's developer is suing over the app's removal and claims that no actual evidence has been provided to substantiate those links to violent outcomes.”

None of Gemini’s links provide support for the government’s claim that the app has been used for violence; one of them (the Slate article I linked above) flatly denies that any such evidence exists.

Without the verification of the specific prompt you used, the claims of LLM invalid. Regardless, you asked for media reports and
I provided them. I now think there are three additional questions your claims raise:

What leads you to the conclusion that the government, who indicts, prosecutes, and punishes, is subject to verification by LLMs or the media? What leads you to the conclusion that the government is obligated to share evidence with the media prior to a trial? Does this requirement extend to all criminal cases?

 

[leicaman]

I've seen so many posts about people using the app to clear out the store they plan to go to soon that I really wonder if it was effective when it was available...

And you believed them?

 

[leicaman]

This app would have been tremendously helpful to proactively clear out the Costco parking lot during the holiday season.

Except for the fact that assuming that many people in the Costo parking lot are immigrants they want to deport is nuts.

 

[leicaman]

Really? Bigger than the FBI colluding with Facebook and Twitter to suppress "troublesome" content and commenters in 2020 (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop story, COVID lab leak discussions, deplatforming conservatives, and so on)?

Yeah, becuase this is real, that is not.

 

[wikiverse]

You in fact literally do… or, to be clearer, you have a right to report on their location, and people have a right to see that

Those are not the same thing. They're entirely different things. The argument was 'I have a right to know', but this is not true. You don't have a legal right to know when law enforcement are arresting people that are not you. This was being used as the argument for a legitimate use for the app - 'the right to know'. No such right exists.

'The right to know' is not a right that exists in law.

This is also not a free speech issue. "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't apply here. The government asking Apple to enforce it's own terms of service is not a law, and Apple would have faced no legal penalty for refusing to do so - just like Apple have refused to unlock devices for law enforcement in the past.

 

[goonie4life9]

Those are not the same thing. They're entirely different things. The argument was 'I have a right to know', but this is not true. You don't have a legal right to know when law enforcement are arresting people that are not you. This was being used as the argument for a legitimate use for the app - 'the right to know'. No such right exists.

'The right to know' is not a right that exists in law.

This is also not a free speech issue. "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't apply here. The government asking Apple to enforce it's own terms of service is not a law, and Apple would have faced no legal penalty for refusing to do so - just like Apple have refused to unlock devices for law enforcement in the past.

You summarized it nicely. The government routinely asks companies to follow their own policies. This is done using so-called demand letters. If that gets compliance, the matter is resolved, saving everyone time and money.

On a related note, what is sorely missing from the entire discussion is that disliking the ICEBlock app and disliking what ICE is doing are not mutually exclusive. Both are problematic.

 

[It’s always something]

Without the verification of the specific prompt you used, the claims of LLM invalid. Regardless, you asked for media reports and
I provided them. I now think there are three additional questions your claims raise:

What leads you to the conclusion that the government, who indicts, prosecutes, and punishes, is subject to verification by LLMs or the media? What leads you to the conclusion that the government is obligated to share evidence with the media prior to a trial? Does this requirement extend to all criminal cases?

My Copilot prompt: “Are there any reports of the iphone app ICEblock being used to commit violence against law enforcement?”

My Gemini prompt: “Is there any evidence that the iphone app ICEblock has been used to target law enforcement for violent purposes?”

I didn’t ask you for media reports. You gave us what you said was an LLM-provided YouTube link to “evidence” that ICEBlock had been used for violent purposes. I watched the clip, and it didn’t even mention ICEBlock. Upon pointing this out to you, you provided three more links from an LLM. Two of them said nothing whatsoever about ICEBlock being used for violence; the other one included nothing more than assertion by Karoline Leavitt, and a denial of her assertion by the app’s author. Again, no evidence.

It sounds now like you’re surrendering the field, since you’re retreating to the position that the government isn’t obliged to provide evidence “prior to a trial”. Let the government charge him then. They haven’t, and they won’t, because they know they’ll lose. The app is undeniably an exercise in free speech, and there is no evidence that it has been abused. If you continue to say otherwise, then of course you are free (and I urge you) to provide that evidence. But there’s no point in continuing a discussion with someone who says that all the proof of his position is sEcReT gOvErNmEnT eViDeNcE.

 

[leicaman]

Those are not the same thing. They're entirely different things. The argument was 'I have a right to know', but this is not true. You don't have a legal right to know when law enforcement are arresting people that are not you. This was being used as the argument for a legitimate use for the app - 'the right to know'. No such right exists.

'The right to know' is not a right that exists in law.

This is also not a free speech issue. "Congress shall make no law..." doesn't apply here. The government asking Apple to enforce it's own terms of service is not a law, and Apple would have faced no legal penalty for refusing to do so - just like Apple have refused to unlock devices for law enforcement in the past.

Actually, having worked in the news business for over 40 years, I can affirm there is a right to know. Not each of us individually. But as members of the public, we all have the right to know. It's called public records. And police activities, esepcially who they arrest and charge, and for what, are a matter of public record. The public benefit of this is they can't secretly carry you away in the middle of the night and never have to answer for doing it. (The current administration notwistsanding. They will have their day in court some day.)

I was a clerk in the Freedom of Information Library when I was in graduate school. I worked for Paul Stevens who was the founder of the Freedom of Information Library, and the driving force behind FOI legislation becoming the law of the land.

 

[leicaman]

You summarized it nicely. The government routinely asks companies to follow their own policies. This is done using so-called demand letters. If that gets compliance, the matter is resolved, saving everyone time and money.

On a related note, what is sorely missing from the entire discussion is that disliking the ICEBlock app and disliking what ICE is doing are not mutually exclusive. Both are problematic.

Yes, correct. Life is complex.

 

[the8thark]

Might be an interesting question — whenever ICE starts actually doing that, as opposed to harassing citizens, legal residents, immigrants literally in the middle of legal immigration proceedings, unauthorized immigrants who have committed no crimes, and yes, the occasional actual criminal as well.

And the thing is, someone isn't a "criminal" until proven so beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law. Doesn't matter what their immigration status is. And guess what's always happened to non-citizens who are convicted of serious offenses? They serve their time and then, frequently, are deported.

Literally no change was needed here to enforce the law as most people claim they would like to see. It was already happening. The only thing that's changed is now ICE is just freely violating both US and international law while making a mockery of human rights, because apparently what some people actually wanted was the spectacle of seeing immigrants hurt.


That's what makes this so sad. Companies went all in on progressive values when it was easy. Turns out all that was little more than a marketing ploy.

And this is why the App Store monopoly should be illegal and should have been blocked years ago, like Europe is finally getting around to doing. A single company having the ability to unilaterally control what software their customers have access to on what's now a de-facto standard information access device is far too easy a target for government demands. If you don't have access to do as you please with the software on a device you purchased, then you don't really own the device.

Whether ICE is or is not enforcing the law is a separate question for another topic. As the answer to that would be based around the political leanings of the person answering.

Countries have a right to the their day in court as you have said. The solution would be holding those arrested of illegal immigration crimes offshore will their court dates. Only allowing them access not the country again when proven innocent.

This would prevent alleged crimes being committed by allegedly illegal immigrants in the country while awaiting their court dates for the alleged illegal immigration crime.

Apple has a duty to follow the lawful instructions of the government. If the government told Apple to do something, it’s up to Apple to do it if Apple feel it’s a lawful request or challenge it in court if Apple feel it’s not a legal request by the government.

As sung by the Pet Shop Boys in their song Integral

“If you have done morning wrong, you have nothing to fear.
If you have something to hide you should not even be here”

This applies to those who allegedly commit immigration fraud and hide their immigration status (ie as an alleged illegal)

Break the law and you should be punished. Allowing those arrested to commit more alleged crimes is wrong as well.

So I agree with you, let those arrested for immigration fraud have their day in court but keep them offshore till their day in court. So their is zero risk of any more crimes being committed.

 

[the8thark]

Actually, having worked in the news business for over 40 years, I can affirm there is a right to know. Not each of us individually. But as members of the public, we all have the right to know. It's called public records. And police activities, esepcially who they arrest and charge, and for what, are a matter of public record. The public benefit of this is they can't secretly carry you away in the middle of the night and never have to answer for doing it. (The current administration notwistsanding. They will have their day in court some day.)

I was a clerk in the Freedom of Information Library when I was in graduate school. I worked for Paul Stevens who was the founder of the Freedom of Information Library, and the driving force behind FOI legislation becoming the law of the land.

What is your opinion on the right to know conflicting with law enforcement.

This is regardless of your opinion in ICE. This is a general talk about the right to know vs keeping everyone safe via good law enforcement.

 

[It’s always something]

Whether ICE is or is not enforcing the law is a separate question for another topic. As the answer to that would be based around the political leanings of the person answering.

Countries have a right to the their day in court as you have said. The solution would be holding those arrested of illegal immigration crimes offshore will their court dates. Only allowing them access not the country again when proven innocent.

This would prevent alleged crimes being committed by allegedly illegal immigrants in the country while awaiting their court dates for the alleged illegal immigration crime.

Apple has a duty to follow the lawful instructions of the government. If the government told Apple to do something, it’s up to Apple to do it if Apple feel it’s a lawful request or challenge it in court if Apple feel it’s not a legal request by the government.

As sung by the Pet Shop Boys in their song Integral

“If you have done morning wrong, you have nothing to fear.
If you have something to hide you should not even be here”

This applies to those who allegedly commit immigration fraud and hide their immigration status (ie as an alleged illegal)

Break the law and you should be punished. Allowing those arrested to commit more alleged crimes is wrong as well.

So I agree with you, let those arrested for immigration fraud have their day in court but keep them offshore till their day in court. So their is zero risk of any more crimes being committed.

This suggestion does not work when the administration unilaterally cancels the legal status of entire groups of immigrants, thereby making them “undocumented” even though they were here with perfect legality beforehand.

And the Trump regime has done exactly this by removing TPS designation from legal immigrants from at least nine countries. Immigrants can’t win!

 

[ProbablyDylan]

This suggestion does not work when the administration unilaterally cancels the legal status of entire groups of immigrants, thereby making them “undocumented” even though they were here with perfect legality beforehand.

And the Trump regime has done exactly this by removing TPS designation from legal immigrants from at least nine countries. Immigrants can’t win!

Let's not forget the people whose visas were revoked because they dared to exercise their right to speak freely.

 

[wikiverse]

Actually, having worked in the news business for over 40 years, I can affirm there is a right to know. Not each of us individually. But as members of the public, we all have the right to know. It's called public records. And police activities, esepcially who they arrest and charge, and for what, are a matter of public record. The public benefit of this is they can't secretly carry you away in the middle of the night and never have to answer for doing it. (The current administration notwistsanding. They will have their day in court some day.)

I was a clerk in the Freedom of Information Library when I was in graduate school. I worked for Paul Stevens who was the founder of the Freedom of Information Library, and the driving force behind FOI legislation becoming the law of the land.

This is a disingenuous argument that introduces something completely irrelevant to the discussion.

The ICEBlock app is not public records and it deletes it's own records after 4 hours. Which means you cannot petition ICEBlock for the records of where it reported that ICE was even on the same day that it was reported. So even based on your own 'public records' argument, ICEBlock wouldn't meet that standard as a substitute for the government withholding or redacting information.

'Public records' and 'right to know' are not legitimate, legal reasons for the app to exist.

The government are not stopping people from accessing public records, and ICE need to actually arrest people before there is a public record. You don't have a right to know before it happens or even while it is happening - you are only allowed to access records when there are records - after it has happened.

It does not matter how many bad faith arguments people want to introduce or how much they want to claim to be experts in any field, you do not have a legal or constitutional right to know where law enforcement are arresting criminals that aren't you.

 

[BruiserBear]

Really? Bigger than the FBI colluding with Facebook and Twitter to suppress "troublesome" content and commenters in 2020 (e.g., Hunter Biden laptop story, COVID lab leak discussions, deplatforming conservatives, and so on)?

“Colluding”. You really think using big legal words makes this seem more important.

That laptop story got so much coverage from certain parts of the media and basically amounted to nothing but embarrassing personal pics. I’m sure you’re convinced otherwise though.

 

[ThomasJL]

If it's true that Apple removed the app due to being pressured to do so, then it means that Tim Cook supports fascism for the sake of increased profits. That shouldn't be surprising considering that Cook has already paid two bribes (the $1 million innagural celebration donation, and the glass plaque with a tacky solid gold base) to President Trump, who has being funding and arming Israel to commit genocide in Gaza. Genocide is the ultimate act of fascism, and Cook's actions, such as paying Trump two bribes and caving into Trump's pressure to remove the ICEBlock app, shows that Cook supports fascism for the sake of increased profits.

Removing the ICEBlock app is supporting ICE. Therefore, Cook's actions support ICE.

If Cook opposed fascism, then he would let the ICEBlock app remain available. ICE is a facsist Gestapo-like organization composed of many fascist white supremacist thugs. Don't forget that the next time Apple SJW-CEO Tim Cook virtue signals online about how he supports Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Cook will gladly support racist groups like ICE if it means increased profits for him and his shareholders.

 

[OGdrknight]

Of course they got pressured.

But you could simply do the same thing with a website because it was only crowd sourced data. Just host it from a country that doesn’t acknowledge the current administration or the US. However, I’m sure you would be labeled terrorist and threat to national security..

Free speech is whatever the current administration says it is unfortunately. 🤦🏽‍♂️

 

[OGdrknight]

If it's true that Apple removed the app due to being pressured to do so, then it means that Tim Cook supports fascism for the sake of increased profits. That shouldn't be surprising considering that Cook has already payed two bribes (the $1 innagural donation and the glass plaque with a tacky solid gold base) to President Trump, who has being funding and arming Israel to commit genocide in Gaza. Genocide is the ultimate act of fascism, and Cook's actions, such as paying Trump two bribes and caving into Trump's pressure to remove the ICEBlock app, shows that Cook supports fascism for the sake of increased profits.

Removing the ICEBlock app is supporting ICE. Therefore, Cook's actions support ICE.

If Cook opposed fascism, then he would let the ICEBlock app remain available. ICE is a facsist Gestapo-like organization composed of many fascist white supremacist thugs. Don't forget that the next time Apple SJW-CEO Tim Cook virtue signals online about how he supports Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Cook will gladly support racist groups like ICE if it means increased profits for him and his shareholders.

I personally believe this is reason Tim is on the way out.

 

[laptech]

So a guy creates an app that allows illegals to avoid ICE agents deporting them and he is complaining his rights of free speech is being trampled on. The only people who are going to defend this guy are those who defend illegal migrants entering the US illegally.

I am sure the Trump administration would be able to provide records of how many ICE agents have been attacked by illegal migrants when trying to be removed, therefore have a legitimate reason for having the app removed. I bet the app developer would not give a damn if an ICE agent was killed because an illegal migrant used his app to know one was in the area coming for them and shot them.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

Countries have a right to the their day in court as you have said. The solution would be holding those arrested of illegal immigration crimes offshore will their court dates. Only allowing them access not the country again when proven innocent.

WTH are you talking about?

We prove people guilty in the US, not innocent. And we do not hold suspects in offshore prisons. That doesn't even make sense unless you're trying to pretend you've discovered one neat trick to make an end run end run around basic constitutional protections.

And you can't prove someone is here without authorization without allowing them their right to a fair trial. Otherwise someone could pick you — yes, even you — up tomorrow and whisk you away to a country where you have no rights whatsoever tomorrow, and there would be quite literally nothing you could do about it.

If you want to live in an authoritarian dictatorship with no rights, where you have to prove your innocence at the mere accusation of an offense like being in the country without authorization, go do it somewhere else. There are plenty of countries with zero freedom, civil rights, or due process to choose from.

Apple has a duty to follow the lawful instructions of the government. If the government told Apple to do something, it’s up to Apple to do it if Apple feel it’s a lawful request or challenge it in court if Apple feel it’s not a legal request by the government.

Uh… no. ICEBlock is very clearly protected speech. Apple may certainly remove it by choice since they are not bound by the first amendment, but the government absolutely cannot demand its removal. Again, basic constitutional law, which has already been well tested for other apps which report police activity.

This isn't complicated or even slightly nuanced.

––

Yikes, I feel like I've lost 15 IQ points just reading the sheer idiocy being spouted by a handful of posters in this thread. And the incredibly sad thing is, I honestly can't tell if it's a troll or it's actually serious.

What a sad state the country is in that people would turn to scapegoating immigrants and denying basic constitutional rights rather than take a look at the actual problems we're facing and vote for people willing to fix them, rather than literal con men and criminals.

By and large, if the kind of person spouting this nonsense actually wants to understand who's responsible for making the decisions that lead to the economic conditions they're facing, all they have to do is look in the mirror and at the people they've voted into office.

You know, the ones that have blocked healthcare reform, leading to ever increasing costs and premiums with fewer safety nets. The ones who have blocked consumer rights designed to prevent abuses at basically every step. The ones who are adding trillions to the debt to fund tax cuts for billionaires, all while enacting even more taxes for everyday purchases, which don't even begin to cover the deficit and instead put a gigantic damper on the entire economy.

Sure, the alternative isn't perfect, but sheesh. If you can't see what's right in front of your eyes and want to go on spouting nonsense about immigrants after 11 pages here, nothing I can say is likely to make a dent.

 

[Chaos215bar2]

I am sure the Trump administration would be able to provide records of how many ICE agents have been attacked by illegal migrants when trying to be removed, therefore have a legitimate reason for having the app removed. I bet the app developer would not give a damn if an ICE agent was killed because an illegal migrant used his app to know one was in the area coming for them and shot them.

I mean, my god. People actually believe immigrants are attacking heavily armed, masked government agents as opposed to doing anything possible to be literally anywhere else?

This is pure fantasy. The people trying to stop ICE are your fellow citizens who actually believe in the constitutional principals the country was founded on. The ones who haven't been conditioned their entire life to automatically see anyone who looks different as the enemy. The ones who understand that figuring out how to get people working together rather than fighting each other over scraps is what drives the economy and ultimately raises everyone up, because life doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

 

[laptech]

I mean, my god. People actually believe immigrants are attacking heavily armed, masked government agents as opposed to doing anything possible to be literally anywhere else?

This is pure fantasy. The people trying to stop ICE are your fellow citizens who actually believe in the constitutional principals the country was founded on. The ones who haven't been conditioned their entire life to automatically see anyone who looks different as the enemy. The ones who understand that figuring out how to get people working together rather than fighting each other over scraps is what drives the economy and ultimately raises everyone up, because life doesn't have to be a zero sum game.

Please stop with the over dramatics. Not every ICE agent is heavily armed, they only do so when they know there is going to be problems. As for the rest, utter rubbish. No one and I repeat NO ONE has the right to enter another country illegally and then expect to be accepted by that countries citizens. Every country has a legal process for entry. Use it or do not bother to enter the country.

 

[wanha]

Apple already stated this: it targeted a group and made it, "likely to... harm a targeted individual or group." If you don't like Apple's policies, you are welcome to share that feedback with them, stop using Apple products, or both.

mate, Apple stated no such thing. The American government made the claim to prevent people from notifying and protecting each from unlawful ICE attacks, and Apple pulled the app so as not to upset King Donald.

 

[nt5672]

You have no reason to assume the user is not telling the truth either.

Why not extend grace and the assumption of good faith?

Because the reality of that last decade is that most people have lost their empathy, honesty, ability to understand reality, and their common sense in favor of greed and political indoctrination.